LATEST NEWS

Next Week: BASEketball? How is that movie is even worthy of an Over/Under article?

Damn you Matt Goldberg you sir are a whore, just like Jenney!!!

I might come back with more later, but for now Ill address one issue I have with the article. Comparing the movie to its source material. The book has no bearing upon how good or bad the film is. None whatsoever. Is not the point of the Over/Under column to judge a film's value based solely upon what you see on-screen, not how well it stacks up against its source material, or any other facet of pre-production, for that matter? -"Films don't have to be simplistic to be uplifting." Do you consider the whole film to be simplistic? If so, Im sure you considered that there were elements to it that you had not discovered yet? I have no qualm with the rest of the column so far, as you support your opinions well.

well as they say, stupid is as stupid does, and youve just done some stupid. more than likely youll burn in hell for this article.

Forest Gump is a great movie and deserved all it got, you suck MATT GOLDBERG!!

Whether it is loyal to the book has nothing to do with the film being under- or over-rated. I enjoy a film because it is good, not because of fancy reasons you self-proclaimed experts come up with. Although it must be nice to pretend that the world is wrong and you right, right? But picking a well-liked movie and dissing it is probably smart move if you want to be remembered. Though most people forget that anyone can do what you just did. Going for Titanic next perhaps?

To those saying that it's not fair to pair the book against the film, that's not why the film is over-rated. There are plenty of films that I love which differ wildly from the book. What I find amusing about this adaptation is that it's still adapting the basic plot of the book but it's changing the message that I find empowering and worthwhile to one that I think is absolutely repulsive. And yes, Korinthian, "Titanic" will probably get the business eventually. Furthermore, sometimes the world is wrong. Just look at crocs (the footwear, not the reptile). But now that I have dissed Forrest Gump, I will be remembered throughout the ages. My destiny has been fulfilled. Now I can finally ascend to the heavens. Oh, to CajoleJuice, I was already in the cool club. We have t-shirts and everything.

I AM new to the world of film! I was unaware that when it comes judging the quality of something, it's majority rules! I didn't know until just now that Shrek 2 is the greatest animated film ever made! Does this rule apply to other areas as well? Is The DaVinci Code one of the best books ever written? Is Dan Brown a literary genius? Also, Titanic wasn't based on a book, which is probably good for you because I think you have a little trouble with reading comprehension. Look at my article again and you can clearly see that I'm against being simplistic. You see, right here: "Films don't have to be simplistic to be uplifting." I find it amusing that you think I failed at reading this film when you failed at reading a sentence.

Actually no, Pulp Fiction should have. But Shawshank would've been preferable to Forrest Gump.

I have to say I love Forest Gump and most everyone i know agrees at the very least its a good movie. It seems this article is total link bait or to drum up a flame war as many blogs do. It feels like you wrote this to create controversy rather make a valid argument against the film. I agree that there were more important films that year but your hating on it just seems way overblown. As for the comparison to the source material, I agree with Keith that you cant compare the book with the movie. In practically every case the film is made differently then the movie, for reasons having to do with time constraints and also translating some books to film is far more difficult then others. I haven't read the original book myself but many other books ive read before ive seen the film, the same has held true for me (i.e: 300, V for Vendetta, From Hell, Hannibal, etc). In most cases the films are very different then the books and they can rarely be compared to each other. You can make an argument the film is a poor adaptation of the book but it doesn't necessarily mean the film is bad, it could just be different. Also I think you completely missed a big point of the film. Your opinion on Jenny doesn't make sense. "Jenny's reward for being human: death" is not the point of her getting AIDS and dying. She dies because of her poor life choices, doing drugs and unprotected sex. The same goes for almost all the characters in the film, they are all corrupted in one way or another. Lt. Dan is an alcoholic on the verge of suicide, even the scene where he meets Nixon and later Forest comments on how Nixon got into trouble but he doesn't know for what (Watergate Scandal). Forest is the only pure character in the film because cant be corrupted because he has no understanding of the things that are going on around him. He does what he is told because he doesn't understand those things but he always chooses to do what is right for those around him. He loves Jenny for who she is, regardless of her life choices, He cares about Lt. Dan regardless of how poorly he treats him. He fulfills a promise to Bubba to make the shrimp boat company. He has a good heart, and the point of his character is that although he doesn't understand many things, he does understand the power of love and compassion and no matter what his situation he tries his best to do what is right. The moral of the story is NOT to do what your told and never question your surroundings, that is just nonsense. Forest's character being mentally challenged means he can't understand the real implications of the things going on around him as a result he can't inject much of a bias into it since he is practically oblivious to it. His character allows the viewer to travel along with him through all these famous historical moments and we get to make our own judgments about what we feel about Vietnam/Nixon/Civil Rights Movement. We get to make those decisions, not him. The film never makes any point that following blindly is right or questioning everything is right. The film is about people and the choices they make under the conditions they are under. Jenny, Lt. Dan, political figures like Nixon, and of course Forest.

Sorry - I haven't read every word of every comment, so forgive any repetition. I'll be brief. First - is "love" just an emotion? I'd disagree on that point. Forrest understanding what "love" is is much greater than him experiencing and showing say... irritation, sadness, anxiety...etc. So, if he truly did know what love was, then contrast that fact against all of his experiences - which I believe was a major point of the film. He didn't understand much, but did love and it was that which drove him: loved momma, loved jenny, loved bubba, loved capt. dan, loved his son. Second - It's ALAN SILVESTRI - if you're gonna blast a guy for writing (a very good score) that well captured the essence of the film at least get the man's name right. While I would have been happy with Shawshank winning that year, I have no problem with Gump winning. Perhaps if there had been a prison-rape scene and poor Gump had experienced the emotion of total denigration, it would have been a better film... to some...and more worthy of the Oscar that it already was.

I think this reviewer is a retard and sure it may have strayed from the theme of the book and all the high flalooten ideas, but for gods sake it was a good movie. That's all you can ask of a film like this is just to entertain. Then he has the plum idea to do a introspective on Basketball next? Firstshowing fire this lame. Matt Goldberg what a shmuck and that's my Over/Under: 'Tard

goddamn this is hilarious. i hope the over/under pieces continue just for the comment gold afterwards!

The point I got from the film that everyone tries to screw Forrest over with their very human traits of greed, jealousy, intolerance etc yet the one who doesn't suffer from these failings that gets ahead. Moralistic maybe but a nice moral that if you don't try and f**k everyone over you might have some good fortune.

It's "articles" like these that increasingly make this site irrelevant. To analyze the character of Forrest past what he really is, the satirical and innocent/child-like narrator of the 60s, is completely missing the point. All this movie is, aside from a love story, is a retrospective look at one of America's most turbulent decades. And even if one did want to do a character study, your analysis is completely off. Your "juxtaposition" of Jenny and Forrest completely fails to mention, pretty much everything that they did or had happen to them in the film. Jenny died because she was simply human? Nonono, she died because of her systematic abuse and overindulgence of partying, smoking, drinking, and drugs (they only show a couple like coke, but one can assume with certainty that as a hippie turned 70s disco chick or whatever, that she indulged in pot, acid, and something injection worthy since she died of AIDS). And Gump has no emotion? Not true at all; how bout courage, empathy, envy, anger, dedication, morality, selflessness, duty. I concede that someone of those aren't emotions, but are traits, but every person must concede as well that it's a rhetorical question of whom you'd want to fight in battle with, or have on your football team, or be in the shrimping business with. This Gump-bashing seems to stem more from the liberal changes from the novel to the film then the actual content of the film, but then what you are really bashing is the Hollywood system and audiences that need a character to root for that they couldn't have found had they adapted the novel without any changes. This site should stick to trailers, interviews, film announcements, and film buzz/gossip. The editorials insult my intelligence and makes other readers comment and discuss topics of limited scope and depth. I won't mention the systematic high grading reviews of horrible movies. Oh oops.

The argument that "most people" like "Forrest Gump" is laughable. Just because most people like Cheetos doesn't make them cuisine. It's the same with movies. Most people also like "Titanic," but that doesn't make it a good movie either. Consensus opinion and quality are irrelevant to one another. In fact, it wouldn't be hard to make an argument that there is, in fact, a negative correlation between the two. If you want to argue that "Forrest Gump" represents quality filmmaking, then you have to make your argument based on the established tenets of film criticism. Saying "most people I know love this movie" is an entirely improper basis for a quality judgment. Do most people know how to properly critique wine? Food? Musical theater? Public speaking? Architecture? Poetry? Visual art? Music? Literature? Ballet? Journalism? Hair styling? Photography? Of course not. Most people have a sufficient body of knowledge in one, two, or maybe three of these areas, but that means the vast majority of the population isn't properly trained in criticism of the rest of those topics. Whether or not "most people" like something has nothing to do with its actual merit. If you disagree with Matt, then prove what makes "Forrest Gump" a well made and properly constructed film. Entertainment value (as proven by the notable absence of "The Shawshank Redemption" on almost every single major film critic's "Top 100" list) has nothing to do with a film's quality.